Let's be honest here, just like the "security" argument for reducing teams by one rider in next year's tour de France was an alibi, this betting thing is an alibi as well to go hunting for the earpieces. organisers (ASO in its time) know how bad for racing the earpieces have been but whenever they tried to ban them collective resistance by the peloton made them give up as when they threatened to strike during a Tour de France stage. So you have to use angles that are undisputable even if intellectually dishonest.

The riders and teams clamor for more security ? Surely a peloton of 176 riders is less dangerous than 198 right ? team size reduction comes through using that angle.

Surely riders and teams wouldn't condone betting affecting the races right ? Cue using that argument to fight against earpieces.

The key is that this fight succeeds. We all want to see the riders back on centre stage, not the DSs, cut the SRMs and earpieces away from the race, let the pack work as a pack with its pecking order, its discussions, etc. That's how it should be.

"At the time, there were 10 riders in the teams, and we managed to go down to nine, but I'm going to go further, and six riders per team would be better,” Lappartient said in an interview with French radio station RMC.

"At the time, there were 10 riders in the teams, and we managed to go down to nine, but I'm going to go further, and six riders per team would be better,” Lappartient said in an interview with French radio station RMC.

"At the time, there were 10 riders in the teams, and we managed to go down to nine, but I'm going to go further, and six riders per team would be better,” Lappartient said in an interview with French radio station RMC.

The really funny thing is that people like 'The Outer Limits' calling for financial reform call for smaller teams, people like Och calling for financial reform call for smaller teams, people like JV calling for financial reform call for smaller teams, and the only people resisting them are the people in the CPA and affiliated regional riders' bodies. Yet here we have the head of the UCI calling for smaller teams and what do we get? Rebellion.

No form of financial reform has yet been suggested that will result in anything other than smaller teams. One version, IIRC, even foresaw teams with just 15 riders on the whole roster.

"At the time, there were 10 riders in the teams, and we managed to go down to nine, but I'm going to go further, and six riders per team would be better,” Lappartient said in an interview with French radio station RMC.

"At the time, there were 10 riders in the teams, and we managed to go down to nine, but I'm going to go further, and six riders per team would be better,” Lappartient said in an interview with French radio station RMC.

42x16ss wrote:That is most likely. 8 riders for GTs, 7 for other WT and HC races, 6 for .1 and below would probably be about right.

To clarify: you think he's attempting to haggle in order to bring in a change that's already been signed off and announced? The thought processes round here sometimes go beyond bizarre.

As a special service for those who don't actually follow this sport, here's the rules:

2.2.003 Without prejudice to specific provisions of the UCI Regulations (e.g. provisions in Part IX and XI regarding respectively the UCI Road World Championships and Olympic Games), the number of starting riders per team shall be set by the organiser, with a minimum of 4 and maximum of 7. The organiser shall indicate in the programme or technical guide and on the entry form the number of starting riders per team for the event. This number shall be the same for all teams.

The number of starting riders who are registered on the entry form must be equal to the number set by the organiser. No account shall be taken of any riders entered in excess of that number.

Special provisions for UCI WorldTour

In UCI WorldTour events, the number of starting riders per team is 8 for Grand Tours and 7 for other events.

42x16ss wrote:That is most likely. 8 riders for GTs, 7 for other WT and HC races, 6 for .1 and below would probably be about right.

To clarify: you think he's attempting to haggle in order to bring in a change that's already been signed off and announced? The thought processes round here sometimes go beyond bizarre.

As a special service for those who don't actually follow this sport, here's the rules:

2.2.003 Without prejudice to specific provisions of the UCI Regulations (e.g. provisions in Part IX and XI regarding respectively the UCI Road World Championships and Olympic Games), the number of starting riders per team shall be set by the organiser, with a minimum of 4 and maximum of 7. The organiser shall indicate in the programme or technical guide and on the entry form the number of starting riders per team for the event. This number shall be the same for all teams.

The number of starting riders who are registered on the entry form must be equal to the number set by the organiser. No account shall be taken of any riders entered in excess of that number.

Special provisions for UCI WorldTour

In UCI WorldTour events, the number of starting riders per team is 8 for Grand Tours and 7 for other events.

Lappartient and the owner of the team Cookson went to great lengths NOT to ban?

Were I to dare and ask, do you think it likely you would actually explain that comment? Cause as far as I know it is so divorced from reality it ought to come with a decree nisi and alimony payments. Not only did Cookson make efforts to have Astana banned, those efforts are part of the reason he and Lappartient's VP Di Rocco - who has his own links to Astana - had their public falling out leaving the head of the Italian fed one of the plotters working on ousting the hapless Briton and inserting Lappartient in his place.

Lappartient and the owner of the team Cookson went to great lengths NOT to ban?

Were I to dare and ask, do you think it likely you would actually explain that comment? Cause as far as I know it is so divorced from reality it ought to come with a decree nisi and alimony payments. Not only did Cookson make efforts to have Astana banned, those efforts are part of the reason he and Lappartient's VP Di Rocco - who has his own links to Astana - had their public falling out leaving the head of the Italian fed one of the plotters working on ousting the hapless Briton and inserting Lappartient in his place.

Lappartient and the owner of the team Cookson went to great lengths NOT to ban?

Were I to dare and ask, do you think it likely you would actually explain that comment? Cause as far as I know it is so divorced from reality it ought to come with a decree nisi and alimony payments. Not only did Cookson make efforts to have Astana banned, those efforts are part of the reason he and Lappartient's VP Di Rocco - who has his own links to Astana - had their public falling out leaving the head of the Italian fed one of the plotters working on ousting the hapless Briton and inserting Lappartient in his place.

Gee here we were wrongfully thinking it was Cookson's supposed many faults as the UCI leader that led to the landslide election result. Cookson didn't appear to place much blame on this himself directly after the election.